Monday, May 4, 2015

Archbishop outlines reasons for gay marriage, sorta


     Several readers last week accused me of being “obsessed” with same-sex marriage, as if the U.S. Supreme Court weren’t right now debating what the New York Times calls “one of the great civil rights issues of the age.”
     It isn’t just me. When I asked on Facebook for suggestions what I should ask Archbishop Blase Cupich when he stopped by the newspaper Thursday, the first suggestion was: “What are his thoughts on civil rights for LGBTs, regardless of Church teachings?”
     A good question. But awkward. I was in no rush. As our hour was winding down, I diplomatically observed that his predecessor, Cardinal George, had strong views on this topic; where did he stand? Cupich’s answer was elaborate, but I’m going to share it in its entirety:
     “In Washington state there was a referendum on this and, my position was very clear. First of all I didn’t want anybody using this debate to in any way demean or denigrate people who have same sex attraction — gay people, lesbians, bisexual, trans — I didn’t want to be part of any of that, because there were voices in fact to demean people. My issue was, not against somebody, but what are we doing in re-defining marriage? Because marriage traditionally has been that union by which we continue the next generation, and there was specific code of law that would support families that take the risk and the responsibility of bringing children into world and preserving the human race. My argument was, what are we doing in not giving those kind of special laws and protections to that group of people who do something to benefit society.”
     Let me interrupt here to point out two things: first, in the 2012 referendum he refers to, Washington State voters approved of gay marriage, 54 percent to 46 percent. Second, that his answer would fit perfectly had I asked, “Hey, is it a good idea to scrap marriage entirely for straight people?”
     The archbishop continued:
     “There was a domestic partnership law in the state of Washington which gave the same rights as marriage, the bill was to just rename it and make it all marriage. I objected to it because I think there’s something unique about the marriage between a man and a woman.”

     To continue reading, click here. 

46 comments:

  1. I clicked the button to continue reading and the article is redacted on the Sun Times website. Not one article about Baltimore just Fags Fags Fags. And what do you expect his holiness to say "sure let's change with the wind and throw the Gospel of 2000 years in a loaded toilet" just because the PC NAZIs have proclaimed there can be only one opinion on this issue. I miss Jerry Falwell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Articles about cigarettes, woodwind instruments, and bundles of sticks? Well that's rather varied.

      Delete
    2. Wait, wasn't Fags Fags Fags the Bette Midler tribute that was at Briar Street before Blue Man Group?

      Delete
  2. I have long wondered why we still have civil "marriage".
    Whenever I read about someone famous getting married in much of Europe, they first go to the civil registry office, sign a few papers & are legally married.
    Then, if they want, the have a fancy wedding, where the bride may have the expensive white gown, the bridesmaids all are in ugly pastel gowns that no sane woman would ever wear again, a judge or clergy of their choice stands up there & reads a bunch of words & pronounces them "married in the sight of god, etc" & everyone gathered applauds & sits down for an expensive meal.
    We already have civil unions in Illinois & so do many other states.
    Government should get rid of civil marriage that requires someone to solemnize the marriage license, whether it's a judge, clergy or even the county clerk & just issue the civil union license, which would also mean "marriage" as soon as each person involved, signed the papers, affirmed they told the truth on the application & the clerk stamped it "APPROVED", with the date.
    All that's necessary is for the states to make that change & add that a civil union is also called a marriage when the parties want to call it that & we're done!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with nearly all of your comment, Clark St. Separating the legal act of marriage from the sacrament of marriage is a great idea. I currently live in one of the most Catholic countries in the world (as a percent of the population) and gay marriage is legal here with no issues.

      Where we part is with regards to bridesmaid dresses. I was a bridesmaid a few years ago and I'm proud to report that I have re-worn that dress multiple times! But the bride was quite reasonable and she selected a lovely dress.

      Delete
  3. Advocate of the Anti-ChristMay 4, 2015 at 5:51 AM

    You should have asked him if he thinks it is ok for priests to keep molesting children. Until the Catholic Church of Blessed Child Molesters does something about that they should STFU about all "moral" issues. If it had been an atheist group, a Moslem mosque, or a Satanist church that had several thousand of its leaders molesting tens of thousands of children, there would be angry mobs outside their meeting places, demanding that they shut down.But the Catholics get to lecture us on morality. They are barf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly, child abuse is a heinous act, especially by those in a position of trust. But all indications are that the rate of abuse among priests is the same as that among the general population.

      Delete
    2. Advocate of the Anti-ChristMay 4, 2015 at 7:47 AM

      njonsense

      Delete
    3. Advocate, Don't forget that the born again, evangelical fundamentalists do the same kind of lecturing.



      Delete
    4. Advocate, your glurge of non sequiturian nonsense, is rather puzzling. Please take a moment from your Satan worshiping, to reflect. We live in a secular society subject to laws passed by the legislative branch, enforced by the executive branch, and adjudicated by the judicial branch of government. Please cite an example of a priest released from prison for pedophilia, and returned to a parish for normal duties by the Catholic Church. If so, I'll concede you have a legitimate point.

      Delete
    5. Well said, Bernie, except I'm not sure what sequiturian means.

      Delete
    6. Anon 11:54,
      Sorry, that's a prideful item on my bucket list. The hope of being cited in the OED as the originator of a word, or colloquialism, that enters into common usage.

      Delete
    7. thanks, saves me a looking up

      Delete
  4. Archbishop Cupich's statement is a good argument as to why we should not abolish marriage. But same-sex marriage will not abolish the benefits currently extended to heterosexual couples.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Robbie the RobotMay 4, 2015 at 7:49 AM

    I am so glad I don't have to marry one of you. you humans are a sorry lot. The Tin Woodsman, now that's my dreamboat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to unscramble your code

      Delete
    2. How about the maid on the Jetsons? Hubba Hubba.

      Delete
  6. I'd like to know what the Archbishop knows about raising kids, since he claims it's hard. How would he or any unmarried clergy really know that hands on wise? Have they been up with a child screaming with fever and picking up vomit at 3a.m.?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am so very very tired of the argument that same sex marriage should not be allowed (or not called "marriage"), because hetero marriage is "all about the children." I'm not able to have children because of a medical condition; by the above argument, I guess I can't get married, either.

    BTW, the argument that we should let hetero couples get "married" while same sex couples get "civilly unionized" also does not hold water. We've tried separate but equal before; it doesn't work.

    Time to get on the right side of history.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm so sorry the horror of Anonymous 1:41AM brought up Baltimore, because that was my first thought when Neil brought up his "you're going on and on about this" critics too. I think we "got" Neil's take on the gay marriage/supreme court story after his first column last week, let alone after the follow-up post and "revenge of the cows," and Baltimore is the biggest domestic story of the year to-date. I think this kind of passion is needed for the causes that are in the position gay marriage/civil unions were in when they were quite *unpopular* at the pools. (Tangent: history doesn't give give nearly enough credit to civil rights advocates who fought for causes during the "Middle Ages" of those causes - e.g., we can name many of the heroes of the '50's and '60s but not too many who fought and suffered post-Reconstruction through WWII).

    My own questions for the Archbishop would have been quirkier (though yes, I think the local church's response to its critics and former victims of sexual abuse has been abysmal and doesn't deserve the fly-by questioning he's been receiving). What specifically should be done to prevent a genocide of the Chaldeans in Iraq? Does he believe Christianity teaches pacifism in personal dealings? I'd be curious to know how he reconciles his views about immigration with research on its effect on the poor, and African-Americans in particular and where if anyplace his religious beliefs allow him to draw the line.

    Finally I'd ask him about what I find to be the quirkiest part of the Bible: Mathew 21:18 and his interpretation of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All, very good questions, Anon not anon. And obviously you've had some biblical studies as well.

      Lady

      Delete
    2. Thanks Lady A - just an interest in apologetics! It was that durn shortwave radio my grandparents gave me as a kid - started listening to "Unshackled" and it led to this!

      Delete
    3. Yes, I'm puzzled by the fig tree quote as well, ANA.

      Delete
  9. Not to give away the game, but I write about stuff I'm interested in and have a coherent thought to share. Anyone who feels I'm beating a dead horse is invited not to read it. Regarding Baltimore, I'm not sure what one says about riots—they're bad but occur and sometimes good results follow, but usually not. The only perspective that I think is worth mentioning is my suspicion that police violence is focused on, in part, because it's a problem that isn't in their hands. Nobody is going to riot over half the community failing to graduate high school. But that's a far bigger problem. I want to say that, but haven't quite found a path to it yet, since the above represents the entirety of my thinking on the subject, and that would make for a very brief column.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying that we who read you for free have no right to dictate your subject matter (clutches pearls)?

      Delete
    2. Good point, NS, about the education problem that would affect more, etc. Is the right fight being fought?

      Delete
    3. Not dictate. But requests are welcome.

      Delete
    4. I wonder what the Greek Orthodox church's stand is on all this.

      Delete
  10. Anon not anon, I went to a Confirmation last week, and a Bishop brought up the horror of Chaldeans and what some refugees in his parish had to put up with. Amazing how in general, the extreme left pc, never brings up much about what happens to Christians there, but are horrified if one even looks cross eyed at a Muslim here. (Not a Republican)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't understand why the Catholic clergy is even opining on matters of law and public policy, much less why the Catholic Church has lobbyists.

    Religions are supposed to lead by persuasion, teaching and moral example, not through the power of government, which is backed by the implicit threat of violence. The moment the Catholic Church or any other religious institution codifies its moral opinions into law, it is no longer leading, but coercing. Why should religions be allowed to access the power of government to achieve their ends, especially since they pay no taxes in support of that government?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ouch. If I told you the pun was unintentional, would you believe me?

      Delete
    2. Well said, Scribe.

      Delete
  12. In the Pope Francis era the tone is softer, but one has to wonder if that is merely tactical or a drift toward changes in doctrine. Or at least in a moderation in the use of the Church's considerable political influence to undermine changes in civil law. That the Church is capable of change is one of many takeaways from David L, Kertzer's important book "The Pope and Mussolini," about the Devil's bargain Pius XI struck with the Italian dictator prior to WW II. The book reveals how deeply anti-democratic and proudly ante-Semitic the official organs of the Vatican were up until the end of the war, The Church is still anti-democratic, but no longer rages against separation of church and state. And the expression of anti-Jewish, or even anti-Zionist, sentiments by any of the clergy now would, I'm sure, be considered very bad form.

    One suspects that many among the Western clergy would just as soon the higher ups would give up on the issue, but the greatest impediment to real change probably comes from the third world, where the Church hopes to see its greatest growth. Bishops in Africa and Asia preside over flocks that have inherited a deep, and pre-Christian, cultural animus against homosexuals.

    Tom Evans

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually greatest growth in religions in 3rd world is evangelism for Christianity and Islam outside of Christianity.

      Delete
  13. nobody that nobody sentMay 4, 2015 at 11:57 AM

    Id believe you, NS. Since as I learned from one of your books, you are an honest guy,

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tom, I think it's just some appeasing words from the Vatican or archdiocese but little change will follow. Lip service if you will...the Pope can't just change things on his own quickly. It's a game perhaps. At least the fundamentalists don't try to pretend.

    Having said that though, NS, I think feel for the gay cause, more than those in the hood and understandably so. One group shoots themselves in the foot more.

    ReplyDelete
  15. meant you feel for

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think I would've asked the archbishop what specific passage in the Bible forbids condoms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the one about going out and multiplying, not that I agree with it

      Delete
  17. I find it amusing that Cupich would use the consanguinity clause to prove the sanctity of marriage exclusive to heterosexuals. Why hasn't any lawyer used his example in Supreme Court arguments yet? Maybe because it's the most desperate reach of argument heard so far? At least he didn't argue social damage to children of same-sex couples. But, the existence of these families harms the unique state of marriage between a man and woman as he sees it?

    No, I think he's smarter than this. He's just reciting the latest, approved of Church dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why would anyone want to be a priest or evangelical minister with all this bull? At least the mainstream Prot, ministers aren't so extreme.

    ReplyDelete
  19. what's a wimple?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Neil...maybe you can get the archbishop to comment on this?


    To: "editorial@catholicnewworld.com" ; "archbishop@archchicago.org"
    Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 9:08 AM
    Subject: re: Our contribution to the Synod of October 2015


    Archbishop Cupich,

    In reading your April 5-18 column in the Catholic New World, I am troubled and a bit confused by part of what you write.

    “...and the more recently emphasized value of tolerance enable a diversity of families to find a place in our society...”

    “...samesex (sic) partners forming families with or without children.”

    In the first quote, you appear to implicitly refer to, among others, relationships between active homosexuals. And you refer to greater tolerance by society,
    as if this is a positive. The second quote corroborates the implication and goes further in suggesting that a homosexual union can be a “family”...a union with
    homosexual activity at the core. According to the Catechism, this activity is among the four "sins that cry to heaven" (paragraph 1867).

    Furthermore, in the second quote, you are explicit in stating that those engaged in a homosexual relationship can establish a “family”.

    Please explain how you pitch the idea that this type of union can be considered a family in light of the Catechism, which implicitly excludes this form of
    relationship from being considered a “family”. I say this considering the following quotes in conjunction with how the Catechism refers to homosexual activity.

    The nature of the family
    2201 ...Marriage and the family are ordered ...to the procreation and education of children. The love of the spouses and the begetting of children create among
    members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities.
    2202 A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family... It should be considered the normal reference point by which the
    different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.
    2357 ...Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual
    acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine
    affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.


    Please explain how a relationship and behavior which is “intrinsically disordered” and of “grave depravity” be at the core of what you refer to as “family”.
    How is your approach consistent with 2000 years of Christian Tradition and Scripture? Finally, is it your intention to change, or simply ignore, the last sentence
    of 2357 quoted above?

    Respectfully,

    Paul Murphy
    Chicago

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I won't presume to speak for the Archbishop, but here's one possible explanation. Perhaps in the specific instances above, he is referring to family units accepted as such in the greater society, if not recognized by the church. For example, a marriage between Muslims would still be considered a marriage by the church, although not a sacramental marriage.
      An unmarried opposite-sex couple who have children is still called a family.

      Delete

Thanks for commenting. As soon as I vet your remarks, they'll be posted, assuming they aren't, you know, mean and crazy.